Mightyspoon the court can provide meaningful oversight, the fact you disagree does not make me wrong. The judge is there to be a gatekeeper for government surveillance requests. I am asking you again to explain to me a system which would better suit your requirements.

The United States federal court system.

The FISA court is part of that system.

That System is not secret and thus a non starter.

Of course the FISC is secret and thus apart from the regularly constructed federal court system even if it's nominally part of it; you even stipulate it shares no similar features. Don't be dense.

Don't suggest a public court system when I have clearly stated secrecy is a requirement, dont be dense.

Why is any special level of secrecy a requirement? Traditional domestic law enforcement can get warrants for wiretaps, surveillance, etc, through the federal court system. Why do the NSA and other agencies need their own nerfed court? They surely have the resources to play ball in the same court as the rest of the law enforcement agencies. Is this some bullshit nativist argument that FISA is mostly only violating the rights of foreigners?

Why is any special level of secrecy a requirement? Traditional domestic law enforcement can get warrants for wiretaps, surveillance, etc, through the federal court system. Why do the NSA and other agencies need their own nerfed court? They surely have the resources to play ball in the same court as the rest of the law enforcement agencies. Is this some bullshit nativist argument that FISA is mostly only violating the rights of foreigners?

Since FISA was established over 35 years ago to fix abuse I am assuming it was part of a compromise with the spying world in order to facilitate some oversight. Why specifically are you distrustful of the FISA court which is a legal court and part of the third branch yet trusting of the rest of the federal court system?

Given it appears you have conceded the need to keep the proceedings secret you are joe citizen are at the same mercy as you are now.

edit: noticed you lead with why is secrecy a requirement.

Surely you understand that warrants on foreign citizens more often than not require exposure of foreign operatives which literally could get them killed?

Except for the hundreds of requests which were forced to be modified to make them legal.

Five were denied between 1980 and 2006. Five. Out of twenty-three thousand. There is literally-literally no chance that the United States brought 99.98% acceptable cases over a twenty-six year span. And I am supposed to believe that "hundreds" were modified to such an extent as to be protective of the person with rights being spied upon? I reject this whole-cloth.

The entire idea of an independent overseer defies belief. Unless you are in the bag. Which is your thing. You speak as if progressive and hoist the Jolly Roger when the Democrats' ox is gored. And that's fine. Just own it.

Again, prove the inconsistency in this or other topics or drop it and quit trolling me.

There's no inconsistency, just blatant and thoroughly partisan dishonesty. There is no basis to assert that the court is just and that we should all be content with its ruling and your behavior through many years on this forum suggests quite strongly that had Bush been behind this you would be saying what I am today.

Of course, so would I, but I am now, too.

You would be a fine Republican--modern day Republican, that is--if you had not decided at some point that donkeys were better. It's very sad. I thought reflexive authoritarianism was supposed to be what the bad guys did.

Why is any special level of secrecy a requirement? Traditional domestic law enforcement can get warrants for wiretaps, surveillance, etc, through the federal court system. Why do the NSA and other agencies need their own nerfed court? They surely have the resources to play ball in the same court as the rest of the law enforcement agencies. Is this some bullshit nativist argument that FISA is mostly only violating the rights of foreigners?

Since FISA was established over 35 years ago to fix abuse I am assuming it was part of a compromise with the spying world in order to facilitate some oversight. Why specifically are you distrustful of the FISA court which is a legal court and part of the third branch yet trusting of the rest of the federal court system?

I already explained the difference in very simple terms you surely could have understood. A real court has non-governmental actors acting in opposition to the state, an appeals process, etc. you should have learned this in high school, at the very latest.

Quote:

Given it appears you have conceded the need to keep the proceedings secret you are joe citizen are at the same mercy as you are now.

The hell I have.

Quote:

edit: noticed you lead with why is secrecy a requirement.

Surely you understand that warrants on foreign citizens more often than not require exposure of foreign operatives which literally could get them killed?

So you're supportive of military tribunals over domestic courts, indefinite detention, and other artifacts of the WOT? They all share the same premises as FISA courts with wide-ranging, unaccountable scope.

I already explained the difference in very simple terms you surely could have understood. A real court has non-governmental actors acting in opposition to the state, an appeals process, etc. you should have learned this in high school, at the very latest.

If you can not know the details of the proceedings how does that change your ability to trust the outcome? Do you not recognize the balance?

Quote:

So you're supportive of military tribunals over domestic courts, indefinite detention, and other artifacts if the WOT? They all share the same premises as FISA courts with wide-ranging, unaccountable scope.

Absolutely not and to take my defense of a very specific court system to mean I support those things is bunch of bullshit. No, they don't share the same premises.

1. Fisa court is not wide ranging, it has a specific mandate to protect US citizens 4th amendment rights when wiretapping foreign operatives and to ensure the government does not overstep it's authority.2. The Fisa court is no less accountable than Open court and it's existence has been upheld in open court before.

Military Tribunals are a joke, I am on record many times saying we should treat terror suspects as criminals with all the rights afforded to them. If they are caught in a warzone they should be treated as POW's to be released when the war they were caught during ends.

Indefinite detention is wrong, they should be tried or let go. Sadly the politics of the situation make that unlikely but that's what I believe.

Everyone here realizes the FISA court was created to protect us from abuse right? Nixon and Hoover wiretapped everyone and the court was created in part to make sure the executive could not spy on whomever it wanted willy nilly.

And yet as far as I can tell, the executive spies on whomever it wants willy nilly. FISA is an abject failure. They are nothing more than warm bodies who rubber stamp government requests.

Accusing me of hypocrisy Faramir only shows you continue to misunderstand and misrepresent my positions.

Re: Telco immunity

Matisaro wrote:

Impeachment is off the table. (thanks nancy).

Here is how I see the bill and the situation.

Bush violates x laws and the 4th amendment and classifies everything about it.

Congress is neutered and Bush ignores subpoenas etc.

The court system is being used to expose information about the plan via various lawsuits against the companies involved, these lawsuits are targeted at the companies but their real value is exposing more information about the program.

With this information exposed the congress can grow a pair and hold the president accountable in whatever fashion it can.

There is no precedent for holding a president accountable in any other way except impeachment but if Obama is elected and he investigates like he says he will(and I have no reason to doubt it so far) then there is a good chance willful disregard for law and illegal activities will be uncovered, at which time something can happen.

Even if that something is just a public expose of what was done and steps to prevent it in the future, that is ok.

I would like to see Bush and company strung up or tried for war crimes, but I am a realist.

To blame Obama for this capitulation is unfair to Obama, the house is weakened by blue dogs and the senate has always been neutered due to Lieberman.

If the senate gets too uppity Lieberman just changes parties and shuts the game down, with this years pickups you will see a true toothed democratic congress, and then some things will get better.

So basically it comes down to this, the fucking bill is gonna pass, either Obama votes yes and removes the right wing terror ally bullshit, or makes a stand and takes a hit he can not really afford to take due to the stupidity of the American people,

Hey catbert, those points are discussed in the video you may have missed. You see Lincoln asked permission and help from congress when he made those changes, fdr asked for congressional approval to intern japanese americans. Bush scorns congress and disregards them whenever they attempt to assert their traditional rights.

Matisaro wrote:

SleepDirt wrote:

This post makes my brain bleed.

Impeachment wasn't so childish when it was Bill Clinton in the WH now was it? Nahh, of course not.

A recent Gallup poll shows 50% of Americans believe Bush's domestic spying is wrong. Please don't you dare even try to minimize this issue. Liberals, moderates and conservatives alike think this spying program is a gross violation of the Bill of Rights. This issue has nothing to do with your political party.. it has everything to do with the bill of rights.

I know you're just going to write off my views as "democratic talking points" and probably call me names such as "looney liberal" or "Clinton Lover" but that's OK. It proves my point quite well, do your worst.

And the other 50% are too ignorant to understand the law enough to understand its wrong, sad but true.

A special treat for those who have read this far.A defense of Obama signing the NDAA, which provided statutory authorization for indefinite detention without trial of alleged terrorists, including American citizens:

Matisaro wrote:

You think vetoing the bill (which by the way would most likely lead to president republican x) would stop them?

A this point the executive can really do what it wants, until congress passes laws to reign the president in we are at the will of the goodness of the president, or the courts. Both of which are fucking better served with a democratic president. This provision was added in with alot of bipartisan support, those fuckers should be the ones we target, not the poor fuck in the white house who has to issue a 10000 word signing statement about how those provisions are bullshit because he can't really veto it at all.

On a particular Bush signing statement:

Matisaro wrote:

Can you point to any example of any president using a signing statement in such a way as to cotradict the entire law being signed as demonstrated by bush's signing statement on the mccain torture bill which turned a bill banning torture in all cases into a bill which allows it if the president thinks its needed?

cause I really think you are confusing what old presidents did with signing statements with what bush is doing with them.

N.B. I would warn the reader away from perusing the threads around the 2008 Democratic primary. Some of the stuff about Hillary Clinton is quite toxic.

A nice long list of out of context quotes, bravo. I was going to go down each one and point out how each one is out of context, but for some of them I just do not even know what the fuck you think I think.

This one is where I stopped typing and realized you just do not give a fuck about being honest.

Quote:

Ironically not about Obamacare:Matisaro wrote:So you consider democrats refusing to back away from their principals by watering down an already compromised to death bill as backing away from their principals?

What the fuck does dredging up this out of context post mean? What stand did I take in it I backtracked on?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A U.S. Internal Revenue Service manager, who described himself as a conservative Republican, told congressional investigators that he and a local colleague decided to give conservative groups the extra scrutiny that has prompted weeks of political controversy.

In an official interview transcript released on Sunday by Democratic Representative Elijah Cummings, the manager said he and an underling set aside “Tea Party” and “patriot” groups that had applied for tax-exempt status because the organizations appeared to pose a new precedent that could affect future IRS filings.

…

Investigators asked Shafer if he believed the decision to centralize the screening of Tea Party applications was intended to target “the president’s political enemies.”

“I do not believe that the screening of these cases had anything to do, other than consistency and identifying issues that needed to have further development,” the manager answered, according to a transcript released by Cummings.

Asked if he believed the White House was involved, the manager replied: “I have no reason to believe that.”

1. Fisa court is not wide ranging, it has a specific mandate to protect US citizens 4th amendment rights when wiretapping foreign operatives and to ensure the government does not overstep it's authority.2. The Fisa court is no less accountable than Open court and it's existence has been upheld in open court before.

Would any other court in this country be able to get away with approving a blanket warrant for everybody? I mean that's pretty much what they did here in the NSA "Metadata" scandal. Tell me Matisaro, how could the DoJ show the FISA court probable cause for "everybody"? And if the FISA court isn't the mockery that we are claiming it is, just how in the hell was such a request approved?

Official moderation notice.

I already explained the difference in very simple terms you surely could have understood. A real court has non-governmental actors acting in opposition to the state, an appeals process, etc. you should have learned this in high school, at the very latest.

If you can not know the details of the proceedings how does that change your ability to trust the outcome? Do you not recognize the balance?

The inherent structure of regular judicial process is more fair than a process comprised only of government actors. Private attorneys in an advsersarial relationship with the court, with appellate processes, and a jury / grand jury of peers are fundamentally different than a kangaroo court that consist completely of government officials.

I don’t know how you could possible not get those distinctions. It’s a fundamental part of a modern justice system, even if there is a timeboxed amount of secrecy for some matters. You may be fine with the FISC's construction, but it's objectively and significantly less accountable than a federal court. It's one thing if you were fine with that, but quite another than you defend it and deny its obvious and significant limitations.

Quote:

Quote:

So you're supportive of military tribunals over domestic courts, indefinite detention, and other artifacts if the WOT? They all share the same premises as FISA courts with wide-ranging, unaccountable scope.

Absolutely not and to take my defense of a very specific court system to mean I support those things is bunch of bullshit. No, they don't share the same premises.

They share the exact same premises; some people / situations are so dangerous that they require heroic measures to protect the government’s prerogative because our poor wittle justice system we get Flag Boners for the rest of the year can’t handle the big bad terrorists.

It’s exactly the same underlying premise and if you can justify secret spy courts, you can easily justify the rest.

Quote:

1. Fisa court is not wide ranging, it has a specific mandate to protect US citizens 4th amendment rights when wiretapping foreign operatives and to ensure the government does not overstep it's authority.

It has an inherent conflict of interest, being that no one outside the government is ever allowed to know whether they are going their job.

Quote:

2. The Fisa court is no less accountable than Open court and it's existence has been upheld in open court before.

It is nearly infinitely less accountable. I’m starting to think you don’t understand what accountable means, nor how our justice system actually works at a basic level.

Again, would an adversary for the FISA court who's job it was to argue against the government make you feel better? I can support that 100%.

(I just feel currently that's what the judge is doing)

No, why would inserting yet another agent of the government assuage concerns that agents of the government aren’t going to defend the public to the fullest of their ability in a court that rubber-stamps wide-ranging requests?

The inherent structure of regular judicial process is more fair than a process comprised only of government actors. Private attorneys in an advsersarial relationship with the court, with appellate processes, and a jury / grand jury of peers are fundamentally different than a kangaroo court that consist completely of government officials.

The FISA courts that you and Matisaro are discussing are used to secure search/surveillance warrants. But even the regular judicial system grants warrants in a non-adversarial process: the government finds a judge to sign off on their warrant. It's not as if the target of a search warrant is in the room to argue that the warrant shouldn't be issued. All this talk about juries and attorneys is a bit of a red herring.

(And for that matter, grand juries of peers don't really provide much protection, either, given the non-adversarial nature of the process. I believe the standard line is "I could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.")

Honest question to the lawyers in the room: how frequently are requests for search warrants turned down by judges in the regular judicial system?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A U.S. Internal Revenue Service manager, who described himself as a conservative Republican, told congressional investigators that he and a local colleague decided to give conservative groups the extra scrutiny that has prompted weeks of political controversy.

In an official interview transcript released on Sunday by Democratic Representative Elijah Cummings, the manager said he and an underling set aside “Tea Party” and “patriot” groups that had applied for tax-exempt status because the organizations appeared to pose a new precedent that could affect future IRS filings.

…

Investigators asked Shafer if he believed the decision to centralize the screening of Tea Party applications was intended to target “the president’s political enemies.”

“I do not believe that the screening of these cases had anything to do, other than consistency and identifying issues that needed to have further development,” the manager answered, according to a transcript released by Cummings.

Asked if he believed the White House was involved, the manager replied: “I have no reason to believe that.”

But the order came down from ON HIGH WASHINGTON!!!

God, what a fucking douchenozzle, and reading abuot the GOP stomping on Issa for being one has given me much yucks over the weekend.

As a Californian, I would like to apologize for any part in sending Issa to the HoR.

The inherent structure of regular judicial process is more fair than a process comprised only of government actors. Private attorneys in an advsersarial relationship with the court, with appellate processes, and a jury / grand jury of peers are fundamentally different than a kangaroo court that consist completely of government officials.

The FISA courts that you and Matisaro are discussing are used to secure search/surveillance warrants. But even the regular judicial system grants warrants in a non-adversarial process: the government finds a judge to sign off on their warrant. It's not as if the target of a search warrant is in the room to argue that the warrant shouldn't be issued. All this talk about juries and attorneys is a bit of a red herring.

(And for that matter, grand juries of peers don't really provide much protection, either, given the non-adversarial nature of the process. I believe the standard line is "I could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.")

Honest question to the lawyers in the room: how frequently are requests for search warrants turned down by judges in the regular judicial system?

When's the last time a regular judicial system court granted a blanket warrant for phone/email records of EVERYONE? At least a regular court would require some probable cause, and, in the case of an eventual trial, that evidence would become known to the defense and they could challenge it and any evidence obtained from a warrant granted based on that evidence. You don't just get stonewalled with classified evidence against you that you can't even challenge.

Tell me Matisaro, how could the DoJ show the FISA court probable cause for "everybody"?

++

I don't see the functional difference between a blanket mass warrant and simply bypassing warrants altogether. I do see the function that warrant provides as the thinnest CYA statement for the executive branch with the "it's legal!", despite every bit of wrong that drips off it.

If we are talking about Verizon, it isn't a warrant. Warrants only issue on probable cause. At best it's some sort of bastardized subpoena.

I heard one analysis say that the FBI does need to have probable cause (or reasonable suspicion or some other similar phrase) but they're no longer required to explain it to the court. They just sort of pinky swear that they have good secret reasons.

If we are talking about Verizon, it isn't a warrant. Warrants only issue on probable cause. At best it's some sort of bastardized subpoena.

I heard one analysis say that the FBI does need to have probable cause (or reasonable suspicion or some other similar phrase) but they're no longer required to explain it to the court. They just sort of pinky swear that they have good secret reasons.

There are indications that the administration is using a reasonable suspicion standard (which comes from the law dealing with automobile stops) in its minimization procedures. It's not clear what the connection is, if any.

An internal IRS document obtained by The Associated Press said that besides "tea party," lists used by screeners to pick groups for close examination also included the terms "Israel," ''Progressive" and "Occupy."

An internal IRS document obtained by The Associated Press said that besides "tea party," lists used by screeners to pick groups for close examination also included the terms "Israel," ''Progressive" and "Occupy."

RE: bold. Obvious post is obvious?

Not trying to snipe. Just saying Issa is a partisan hack. I suppose that too is obvious.

Something I haven't figured out yet. Why is this extra examination inappropriate for the IRS scandal? These are political groups trying to claim to be not political groups and were upset that someone is giving these claims additional examination?

Something I haven't figured out yet. Why is this extra examination inappropriate for the IRS scandal? These are political groups trying to claim to be not political groups and were upset that someone is giving these claims additional examination?

Actually investigating politcal groups is perfectly acceptable and appropriate. Unfortunately, the way it was done looks a lot like profiling even if there was no intent and it was due to laziness and/or bad processes.

Something I haven't figured out yet. Why is this extra examination inappropriate for the IRS scandal? These are political groups trying to claim to be not political groups and were upset that someone is giving these claims additional examination?

It looked bad because Issa said it only happened to conservative groups. Makes you wonder how he knows they are conservative if they don't have a partisan stance.

Something I haven't figured out yet. Why is this extra examination inappropriate for the IRS scandal? These are political groups trying to claim to be not political groups and were upset that someone is giving these claims additional examination?

It looked bad because Issa said it only happened to conservative groups. Makes you wonder how he knows they are conservative if they don't have a partisan stance.

This is what I find so silly about it...the right finds it almost impossible to talk about said groups with out referring to them as political groups which means they should be denied the status.

It's not enough to be simply be conservative or liberal to be denied public interest tax benefits. It has very specific criteria. e.g using money for supporting specific political candidates. It's fine to be conservative and even "partisan". Having a political perspective isn't the issue.

The actual issue is that Issa demonstrably lied by selectively releasing transcripts and is regularly shown to be wearing no clothes. He's a menace. A dumb menace, but an embarrassing irritant nonetheless that makes a mockery of oversight in favor of partisan snipe hunting.

The actual issue is that Issa demonstrably lied by selectively releasing transcripts and is regularly shown to be wearing no clothes. He's a menace. A dumb menace, but an embarrassing irritant nonetheless that makes a mockery of oversight in favor of partisan snipe hunting.

The only issue I have with this statement is the idea that Issa is a dumb menace. Frankly, I think he's dangerously smart when it comes to this sort of thing. He knew what narrative he wanted to go with, and he was extraordinarily effective in pushing it for several weeks. He made a targeted information request, he released only the information that supported his narrative, and he kept pushing forward on it, not allowing anyone time to do a "wait a minute" check on what he was saying.

Three months from now, if you ask people about this "scandal", odds are that most of them are going to continue thinking that the IRS had a vendetta against conservative groups, and that Obama probably played a role in it. In that regard, Issa was brilliant. Almost as good as the "Saddam has WMD's" narrative.

There's also some thought that it was to rile up more hate for the IRS, try to defund them some more, especially if they can target cuts toward the group that will be responsible for implementing the subsidy payments in Obamacare.

Three months from now, if you ask people about this "scandal", odds are that most of them are going to continue thinking that the IRS had a vendetta against conservative groups, and that Obama probably played a role in it. In that regard, Issa was brilliant. Almost as good as the "Saddam has WMD's" narrative.

Of course. Look how certain politicians still string people along with "BENGHAAAAAAAAAAAAZI!", no matter what facts come to light.